The man who changed the course of history. A dozen people who have changed the course of history and the consciousness of mankind over the past millennium

The ruler of the Mongols created the greatest empire in history, subjugating vast expanses of Eurasia from the Sea of Japan to the Black in the 13th century. He and his descendants swept away the great and ancient states from the face of the earth: the state of Khorezmshahs, the Chinese Empire, the Baghdad Caliphate, most of the Russian principalities were conquered. Huge territories were placed under the control of the steppe law, which was called "Yasa".

But unlike other conquerors for hundreds of years before the Mongols who dominated Eurasia, only Genghis Khan managed to organize a stable state system and make Asia appear before Europe not just as an unexplored steppe and mountainous expanse, but as a consolidated civilization. It was within its borders that the Turkic revival of the Islamic world then began, with its second onslaught (after the Arabs) almost finished off Europe.

In the state of the Mongols, the principle of religious tolerance was established. Travelers described that a church, a mosque, a Buddhist pagoda stood in front of the tent of the great khan, and shamans danced.

But most importantly, Genghis Khan was a kind of apocalyptic reminder to the European Christian and Asian Islamic worlds. After decades of internecine strife, in which fellow believers exterminated each other for a piece of land or a scattering of gold coins, the "scourge of God" comes and takes away land, gold, and life itself from everyone.

The Mongols and the peoples of Asia in general revere Genghis Khan as the greatest hero and reformer, almost like the incarnation of a deity. In European (including Russian) memory, he remained something like a pre-storm crimson cloud that appears before a terrible, all-cleansing storm.

2. Martin Luther (1483-1546)

An Erfurt student, who received a master's degree in "liberal arts", by 1510 experiences such a strong attack of "fear of God" that he decides to devote himself to the cause of the Catholic Church and is tonsured into the Augustinian order. There he indulges in asceticism and comprehends the depths of dogmatic theology.

If only Rome knew to which "humble servant" it would bestow the priesthood and the title of doctor of theology! An agonizing search for truth and an intense study of the Holy Scriptures led Luther to the conclusion that the glittering building of the Roman Church, which had been built over almost the entire Christian world for centuries, was nothing more than a decorated tomb.

The 95 Theses, published in 1517 in protest against the trade in indulgences, and the Augsburg Confession of Faith deal a near death blow to Catholicism. Their result is the emergence of "free" European Christianity (Protestantism), the fundamental feet of dogmatics of which are the recognition of the absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures, "personal faith" as the cornerstone of human salvation, the doctrine of "universal priesthood" (the absence of any special grace-filled tradition, within the framework of which alone can a priesthood exist, independent of the moral character of the holders of the dignity).

Luther showed by his example what one person can do if he is endowed with will, faith and hard work. Luther would have been able to do even more if, during the peasant war under the leadership of Thomas Müntzer, he had not called for reprisals against the rebels. This movement took place under the obvious religious Protestant slogans, which said that the rebels understood Christianity as a religion of social equality, opposed to injustice and oppression. By taking the side of the princes and aristocrats, Luther put all the prophetic fervor of the Reformation into the service of the northern European enemies of the Holy Roman Empire. This ensured the final reconciliation of Protestantism with Catholicism.

3. Pope Gregory VII (circa 1021-1085)

In the world called Hildenbrand from Tuscany, Pope Gregory VII studied in Rome, and he accepted monasticism in the famous monastery of Cluny. The Cluniacs preached, on the one hand, the renunciation of the clergy from the secular way of life, and on the other hand, the liberation of the Church from the influence of secular power.

Hildenbrand became a fierce champion of both. His struggle to establish the power of the Church over the secular world of emperors, kings and barons began at the time when he became a cardinal and the closest adviser to Pope Leo IX (1049-1054). First, he ensured that popes began to be appointed without the consent of the imperial authority by the decision of the college of cardinals (bishops of the Roman region, priests of the main Roman churches and several deacons who were under the Pope and his cathedral church). Hildenbrand overcame the resistance of the secular aristocracy, but did not dare to take the throne himself after the death of Leo IX, placing Alexander II (1061-1073) on it. After him, he himself finally became the Pope, ruling the Church until 1085.

The papacy of Gregory VII is a history of victories and defeats. The highest point of this pontificate is the winter of 1077, when Emperor Henry IV, excommunicated by the Pope, had to come to Canossa and there, barefoot on his knees, humbly ask for forgiveness for three days. The lowest is 1084, when the emperor took revenge by electing Clement III, later nicknamed the "antipope", to the papal throne. Gregory VII went so far as to give Rome for plunder to the bloodthirsty Normans and Saracens (Muslims) of Robert Guiscard, who settled in Sicily.

Then, horrified by what he had done, he retired to Salerno, where he died in 1085, saying before his death: "All my life I loved the truth and hated lawlessness, for which I am dying in exile."

The great Pope Gregory VII wanted to establish a worldwide theocratic monarchy under the rule of Rome. Any power was considered by him below papal. The "Holy Father" has the right to distribute both crowns and omophorions. The whole world should lie at his feet.

No wonder it was in the era of Hildenbrand's vigorous activity that the Church split into Orthodox and Roman. The principles of church organization, formulated by Gregory VII, formed the basis of the phenomenon that was called Roman Catholicism, and it was they who for centuries determined (and in many ways still determine today) its face.

4. Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin (1870-1924)

The Simbirsk high school student, who eventually founded the victorious Bolshevik Party, of course, was not a religious figure in the sense in which it is commonly understood. But the charge of progressive (or destructive?) energy that he breathed into humanity with the revolution of 1917 has not dried up to this day and was undoubtedly of a religious nature. The communist faith in a bright future, for which one must die or live in agony today, has replaced Christianity, Islam, and many other religions for millions of people.

The name of Lenin was pronounced with sacred awe for decades in different parts of the Earth. They still say it today. What is Vladimir Lenin to these obscure black, yellow, red, white adherents of communism? What terrible lie did he see in the organization of the world, what words did he manage to call it so that he would be heard and understood on all continents?

Did he say that "there is no God, which means that everything is allowed"? That "socialism is right" absolutely? Or does the ridiculed and seemingly parodic formula about communism, which is "Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country", as in a Buddhist mantra, contain a terrible magical power?

Isn't the image of the "great and wise" Lenin, created by Stalin's liars and executioners, a religious myth?

The riddle of the leader of the Russian revolution has not yet been solved. A book has not yet been written that would reveal his secret. Passionate hatred for him, as well as fanatical love, which have not cooled down in humanity so far, still do not make it possible to look at him objectively, with cold impartiality.

One thing is obvious. Lenin is a figure so mystical in his totally realized nihilism that it is simply impossible to understand the religious history of mankind without studying his personality.

5. Joan of Arc (1412-1431)

The Maid of Orleans appeared, as it were, from the heart of France, to save the weak, cowardly and treacherous Dauphin, to put him on the throne of her country, to win several victories, to put the English to flight. The meaning of the feat of a fragile peasant girl is hidden from the people of the New Age. She heard otherworldly voices (some considered them angelic, others - vice versa), was an orphan, saw cruelty and murder. Jeanne's short life was subordinated to one idea, which is absolutely not unconditional either from the point of view of her contemporaries, let alone the enemies who sent her to the stake as a harmful and dangerous witch. The Dauphin, when he became king, no longer needed her alive, and the dead are easier to adapt to serve people, as well as their self-interest and their money.

Jeanne stopped armies, turned troops, took fortresses. Her voices were with her until the blood was shed. She devoted her life to the king, and when he betrayed her, she could no longer live.

Voltaire laughed at Jeanne. Calling the Virgin a whore was the style of the witticism of the century. However, the century dealt with the virgins, and over the kings, and over the whores, and over the wits. Century dealt even with her closest associate - Jules de Rais, whom children know as Bluebeard, a gloomy murderer and a libertine. And he was her faithful knight and associate. He saw how she was seized, but he could not save her, and his life no longer had any meaning, just as the memory that remained about him through the ages had no meaning.

6. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)

Cromwell came from a highly successful Puritan family. One of his ancestors, the reformer Thomas Cromwell, was executed at the height of his career. A pragmatist by conviction, he made a fortune by successfully marrying, was elected to parliament and became one of the leaders of the opposition. In 1643, when the conflict between Parliament and the king reached a decisive phase, Cromwell abandoned the meetings and began to form combat detachments. For the sake of business, he did not spare his strength, and even more so his relatives, for example, he confiscated his uncle's property in order to arm the army. Cromwell controlled all financial and personnel issues, willingly accepted the poor into the army, awarded officer ranks for courage, and not for origin.

There was an iron discipline in the army, its soldiers sang religious hymns before the battle and pressed the royal troops so successfully that the enemy could not believe that it was not a regular military man who was at the head, but a middle-class landowner.

Cromwell personally insisted on the execution of the king. And it was a turning point not only in his biography, but in the whole history of Europe. For the first time, a person who was called "God's anointed" and whose principle of power was tried to be explained by "divine laws" was found guilty of a crime against the people, of instigating a civil war. His blood shook the world and thrones.

Cromwell was a hardened religious fanatic. He forbade luxury, closed theaters and abolished public entertainment. His place in history would have been less noticeable if it were not for the unfortunate King Charles, who, fortunately for Cromwell, actually turned out to be a tyrant and perjurer.

The personality of Lord Oliver cannot but arouse disgust among all adherents of the romantic conception of world history. His practicality and ability in difficult times to put the sincere fanaticism of his followers at the service of earthly interests cannot but attract the curiosity of those who aspired and are striving to rule the world with the help of religious slogans and money.

7. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

He was born in the Corsican town of Ajaccio, rose to fame with the help of the French Revolution, became emperor and married the emperor's daughter, was defeated and died on a small island in the South Atlantic.

His last words were: "France ┘ Army ┘ Vanguard ┘". What allows us to include Napoleon among the people who radically influenced the religious history of the world?

Of course, it is not enough for us that even during his lifetime they suspected an apocalyptic beast in him and searched for the hidden number 666 in the letters of his name. It is not enough for us that he was the first who dared, dragging the Pope for this, to lay on himself the imperial crown, regardless of the opinion of all the other kings and emperors (“Let them not think that I am going to beg the throne for one of my own: I have enough thrones to distribute them to my family,” he wrote to Murat). It is not enough for us even that it was his "Civil Code" that defined and still defines the foundations of European jurisprudence, giving a completely new understanding of such a term as "human rights".

Napoleon completely changed the idea of the role that an individual can play in history. He knew how to force himself to be loved with an almost religious love. In battle, his grenadiers went to their deaths only to shout at their last moment: "Long live the emperor!" He paid them a hundredfold, and when in 1815 he landed in the south of France with a handful of adherents, he went to meet the troops sent against him with his chest open: "Soldiers, do you recognize me? Which of you wants to shoot at his emperor? Shoot!" The soldiers rushed towards him.

Napoleon will always remain a symbol of human capabilities, will and, perhaps, youth, which is ready to destroy itself for the sake of such an illusory concept as "glory".

8. Prince Vladimir the Holy (946-1015)

The Slavic Sea, which did not spill over into the borders of Roman Europe, was shaped by the mysterious will of the Kyiv prince, who decided to be baptized after a very stormy and far from righteous life. Vladimir, who remained a pagan by nature to the grave, converted to Christianity in the Byzantine version 50 years before the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches became final.

The secret of choice is hidden in history. None of the possible explanations can be exhaustive. Perhaps that is why the reference to the chronicle story about the "choice of faiths" is so stable. Of course, the history of the world would have been completely different if the Kyiv prince had adopted Western Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

In the annalistic consciousness, Russians, having become Orthodox, took on the mission of "workers of the last hour" - in the apocalyptic sense, harbingers of the end of history, workers in the field of approaching the Day of Judgment. In this sense, the idea of "Moscow - the Third and Last Rome", adopted after the collapse of Byzantium, worked for the speedy approach of the End of the World, and not for postponing it, as happened in the New Age, when the End of the World was semantically equated with a universal catastrophe that needs to be postponed. at any cost.

Vladimir was baptized in Korsun, kindly persuaded the people of Kiev to accept the faith, baptized the people of Novgorod with a sword. Of all these lands, only Novgorod remained in Russia, and the "cradle of Russian cities" is today the capital of a sovereign state in distress.

During the time of Vladimir, the Moscow lands were inhabited by peaceful pagans, who nourished Christianity with indestructible remnants. That transparent faith of Saint Vladimir, which led him to the conviction that it is necessary to feed the last beggar and release the slaves, is not viable in the human community. So the wise men told the prince. The wise men of our day agree with this. So it turns out that from the entire heritage of St. Vladimir, only the phrase thrown by chance turned out to be effective: "The joy of Rus' is drinking."

9. Emperor Peter I (1672-1725)

The Russian tsar, who dared to get out of the stuffy framework of the national-religious tradition. A Christian who never doubted the purity of his Orthodox faith, who broke the back of the institution of the Church in the name of a global idea, alien to the very structure of thinking of his contemporaries. A titan who broke his health in an endless series of revelry, drunkenness, mockery of near and far. A father who judged and executed his own weak and doubting son. Creator of a new capital, a new army, a new image of the country, a new bureaucracy. A sovereign who thought for centuries ahead, addicted to the imperial symbols of Ancient Rome.

The first Russian who rebelled against domestic formlessness, laziness, heaviness, sluggishness, inertia. Russian passionary, who ordered to pull up the curtains in the bedchambers, in order to return at least at night to the familiar hut interior of his childhood.

Peter, a gigantic figure in Russian history, broke the sacred image of the tsar-father, which his father Alexei Mikhailovich so cunningly and painstakingly put together. He broke it so that the last twenty years before the collapse of the empire, the Romanovs, bit by bit, restored this image in the silence of the village of Fedorovo.

Peter is unacceptable to those who see in Russia a grain of great meaning for the preservation of the purity of the faith. Peter is the enemy of all bearers of the idea of Russian exclusiveness, and for extreme nationalists, the enemy of the Church of Christ, one of the incarnations of the Antichrist, who let the world's evil into the Russian paradise. He was feared alive for his tough temper, for quick reprisals, for his insistence on initiative. Peter turned to his comrades-in-arms, but instead of comrades-in-arms he saw only cowardly serfs. He hoped that education would instill in them a sense of dignity and encourage the nation to take an active part in life. Passionary is an apocalyptic beast, the pious guardians considered. And the duckweed closed again over the swamp of Russian life.

10. Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini (1900-1989)

When asked about his political platform, he once answered that it was "shahada". This is the name of the Islamic confession of faith: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet." The whole life of Khomeini and what he did at the very end of it is a confirmation of this principle.

Why didn't Iran follow Shah Reza Pahlavi, who flooded the country with cheap foreign goods, achieved substantial social guarantees for the poor, tried to reform the state system, and even stood on the verge of declaring Iran a nuclear power? Probably because the principle of "gold" (free market) did not prove to be as all-conquering in the hearts of people as the principle of God formulated in the Koran.

Khomeini is almost our contemporary. But, despite this, we put him in the top ten people of the millennium. It was he who managed to prove that the potential of religion in our seemingly so secular world is by no means exhausted. That the latent energy dormant in the hearts of people may one day be awakened under the slogan "Silence for a Muslim is a betrayal of the Koran!" (as it happened in the autumn of 1978 in Tehran) to turn the seemingly unshakable order of things. And then even all the American, Soviet, NATO and Israeli power will not be enough to stop the spread of the wave of a new revolution.

Khomeini's life ended in an atmosphere of gradual collapse of all his hopes. Having staked on the clerical leadership, he thereby planted a time bomb under those ideals for the adoption of which he wanted to prepare humanity. The priestly caste could not go against their interests. After the youth of the revolution was destroyed in the war against Iraq, it remains only to wait for the hour when Iran will again join the world building according to the American standards of the "golden calf".

Have you ever had to take any action that turned the situation in the bud and you felt like you just challenged fate itself and won it? But, despite all the results, your act could be decisive only in some small situation and could in no way affect society and, especially, the whole world. Although, there were those in history who were able to turn its course and make it go according to its own scenario.

Your eyes are presented with a list of 10 outstanding personalities who, by their actions, were able to change the whole world and history so much that we still see the consequences of their actions. This is not a top or even a comparative article, historical figures are arranged according to the dates of their lives and deeds.

Euclid, father of mathematics

Numbers, addition, division, tens, fraction - what do these words refer to? That's right, math! It is impossible to imagine the modern world without a lot of calculations, because we, at a minimum, are forced to count the money spent on buying groceries in the store. But there were times when there was not even the concept of “one” in the minds of people. Where did this great science called “mathematics” come from? Euclid is the founder of this science and its founder. It was he who gave the world mathematics in the form in which we see it. "Euclidean geometry" was taken as a basis by ancient, and later by medieval scientists as a model of mathematical calculations.

Attila, King of the Huns

The great king of the Huns left a noticeable mark in history. If not for him, the Western Roman Empire could have collapsed earlier. Attila's invasion of Gaul and his meeting with the Pope left a rich mark on Catholic literature. In medieval writings, Attila began to be called the Scourge of God, and the Huns' invasion itself was regarded as a punishment for insufficient service to God. All this, one way or another, was reflected in the subsequent development of Europe.

Steppe Emperor Genghis Khan.

As soon as the Europeans recovered from the invasions of the Huns, the threat from the nomads again hung over Europe. A huge horde that wipes entire cities off the face of the earth. An enemy that both German mercenaries and Japanese samurai fought at the same time. We are talking about the Mongols, led by the rulers of the Genghisides dynasty, and the founder of this dynasty is Genghis Khan.

The Genghisid Empire is the largest continental empire in the history of mankind. European rulers united in the face of the danger of the Mongols, and the conquered peoples created their own unique culture from the influence of the conquerors. One of these peoples were the Russians. They will free themselves from the power of the Horde and form a state, which, in turn, will also change history.

Discoverer Columbus

Everything in the modern world, one way or another, is connected with America. It was in America that the first colonial power appeared, in which not the indigenous population lived, but the colonists. And one can talk about the very contribution of the United States to world history for a very long time. But America did not just appear on the maps. Who opened it to the whole world? The name of Christopher Columbus is associated with the discovery of this land for the whole world.

The genius of Leonardo da Vinci

Mona Lisa is a painting known all over the world. Its author Leonardo Da Vinci, a Renaissance figure, inventor, sculptor, artist, philosopher, biologist and writer, such people were called geniuses in his time. Great man with a great legacy.

Da Vinci's influence on art and science is enormous. Being the most outstanding figure of the Renaissance, he made a huge contribution to the art of subsequent generations. On the basis of his inventions, new ones were invented, some of which serve us now. His discoveries in anatomy changed the concept of biology in the bud, because he was one of the few who, despite the prohibition of the church, dissected and examined corpses.

Reformer Martin Luther

In the 16th century, this name evoked the most contrasting emotions. Martin Luther - the founder of the Reformation - a movement against the authority of the Pope. The formation of a new confession, supported by the masses, is already a big deal, capable of changing the world. And when this denomination is formed from another in a separatist way, then it is not far from the war. Europe was swept by a wave of religious wars that lasted more than a century. The biggest conflict was the Thirty Years' War, one of the bloodiest wars in history. It should not be forgotten that, despite the end of all wars for religion, religious differences have further divided Europe. Protestantism has become the state religion in some countries, and even remains so in a few of them to this day.

Napoleon I Bonaparte, Emperor of France

"Through hardship to the stars". This quote perfectly describes this man. Starting his journey as an ordinary Corsican boy, Napoleon became the emperor of France and stirred up all the European powers that had not seen such people for hundreds of years.

The name of the emperor-commander was known to every European. Such a person could not disappear without a trace from the pages of history. His military successes will become an example for many commanders, and his personality will be equated with God. Guided by his "guiding star", Bonaparte changed the world the way he wanted.

Leader of the Revolution Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Every citizen of Russia has ever heard of the "Great October Revolution" - the event that marked the beginning of the formation of a new power. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin created the very first socialist state in the world, which in the future will have a huge impact on world history.

The Great October Revolution is considered the most significant event in the whole world to this day, because it proved that the establishment of a communist state is possible. The Soviet Union, which replaced the Russian Empire, changed the world in a way that many could not even imagine.

Albert Einstein, founder of modern physics

1933: German-Swiss-American mathematical physicist Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955). (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

The name of Albert Einstein is known even to those who do not really understand anything in physics. It is understandable: his very name is a household name. The creator of the famous theory of relativity and countless works, Albert Einstein changed the very concept of the word “physics”.

The general theory of relativity caused a stir among scientists, and yet it was not the only work of this scientist. All established scientific theories and opinions were literally pulverized by just one person. Modern physics still stands on the claims of Albert Einstein and will probably stand for more than one hundred years.

Adolf Gitler

The Second World War is the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind. Over 70 million people have lost their lives and many more have been broken. Everyone knows the name of the one who started this war. Adolf Hitler is the leader of the NSDAP, the founder of the Third Reich, a man whose name is inextricably linked with the concepts of the Holocaust and the Second World War.

As much as everyone hated Hitler, his influence on world history is recognized and undeniable, because the results of the Second World War are still echoing through our world, sometimes revealing various details. To be more specific and simpler, it was precisely because of Hitler that the UN was formed, the Cold War began, and many inventions were created that passed from the army into everyday life. But we should not forget about the destruction of entire nationalities just because they simply exist, we should not forget about the 70 million who gave their lives to end this terrible conflict, we should not forget about the tragedy that the whole world had to end.

A person who can change history must be charismatic, talented, purposeful, obsessed with an idea, strong-willed and able to capture the mood in society or create the mood in it that he needs. Usually the power of charm of such a person subjugates the crowd. So, the outwardly unattractive Hitler delighted the public. The result was a global cataclysm. The above qualities were possessed by Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and other personalities who influenced the course of history.

Peter's reforms changed the course of Russia's historical development. He relied on his associates in his activities, infected those around him with his energy and great desire to transform Russia. Of course, he was charismatic and very intelligent, but, in addition to all his wonderful qualities, he needed a favorable historical environment for the success of the enterprise. In this case, there was a need for change in Russia, and the “window to Europe” was cut through.

Of course, he changed the history of V.I. Lenin. He devoted his whole life to this goal, for years he carried out subversive work in the public consciousness, sowed revolutionary sentiments with his associates. And he came to the desired goal: the socialist revolution was accomplished, the life of the country with its centuries-old way of life was destroyed, the lives of millions of people were destroyed.

A person who decides to change history takes on a heavy burden. Deciding the fate of millions is a huge responsibility. Some figures change history through creative transformations. Future generations will keep a grateful memory of them. Other historical figures leave behind traces of destruction. They are conquerors and revolutionaries. So, the great Napoleon undoubtedly influenced the course of history, but what did he give the world with his wars? Death, blood, suffering. The leader of the French Revolution, Robespierre, turned his country into a bloodbath. Is it possible to be happy when the soul is weighed down by such bloody deeds? In the end, you have to pay for everything. Hitler committed suicide, Napoleon died in oblivion on the island of Elba, Robespierre ended his life under the knife of the guillotine. Lenin died at the age of fifty-four from softening of brain tissue. These are the lessons of history.

The role of personality in history as a philosophical and historical problem

Understanding the course of history inevitably raises questions about the role of this or that person in it: did she change the course of history; whether such a change was inevitable or not; what would have happened without this person? etc. From the obvious truth that it is people who make history, the important problem of the philosophy of history follows. about the relationship between regular and random which, in turn, is closely related to the question of the role of the individual. In fact, the life of any person is always woven from accidents: he will be born at one time or another, marry this partner or another, die early or live long, etc. On the one hand, we know a huge number of cases when a change of personalities (even under such dramatic circumstances as a series of assassinations of monarchs and coups) did not entail decisive changes. On the other hand, there are circumstances, which are discussed below, when even a trifle can become decisive. Thus, it is very difficult to grasp what the role of the individual depends on: on himself, the historical situation, historical laws, accidents, or all at once, and in what combination, and how exactly, is very difficult.

In any case, it is important to understand that an accident, having taken place, ceases to be an accident and turns into a given, which, to a greater or lesser extent, begins to influence the future. Therefore, when a person appears and is fixed in a certain role (thereby making it difficult or easier for others to come), “chance ceases to be an accident precisely because there is a given person who leaves an imprint on events ... determining how they will develop” (Labriola 1960: 183).

The uncertainty of historical events, the alternative future and the problem of the role of the individual. Modern science as a whole rejects the idea of predetermination (predetermination) of historical events. The outstanding French sociologist and philosopher R. Aron, in particular, wrote: “Whoever claims that an individual historical event would not be different, even if one of the previous elements were not what it really was, must prove this statement (Aron 1993: 506). And since historical events are not predetermined, then the future has many alternatives and can change as a result of the activities of various groups and their leaders, it also depends on the actions of various people, such as scientists. Consequently, the problem of the role of personality in history is always relevant for each generation.. And it is very relevant in the age of globalization, when the influence of certain people on the whole world can increase.

Goals and results. Forms of influence. A person - for all its potentially important role - is very often unable to foresee even the immediate, not to mention long-term, consequences of his activity, since historical processes are very complex, and over time more and more unforeseen consequences of past events are revealed. At the same time, a person can have a significant impact not only by actions, but also by inaction, not only directly, but also indirectly, during his life or even after death, and a noticeable mark in the history and further development of societies can be not only positive, but also negative. , and also - quite often - unambiguously and forever not determined, especially since the assessment of a person depends on political and national predilections.

Dialectical difficulties of the problem. From the standpoint of providentialism, that is, if some non-historical force (God, fate, “iron” laws, etc.) is recognized as real, it is quite logical to consider individuals as tools of history, thanks to which some predetermined program is simply implemented. However, too many events in history are personified, and therefore the role of the individual is often exceptionally significant. "The role of personalities and accidents in historical events is the first and immediate element" (Aron 1993: 506). Therefore, on the one hand, it is the actions of leaders (and sometimes even some ordinary people) that determine the outcome of the confrontation and the fate of various tendencies in critical periods. But on the other hand, it is impossible not to notice the conditionality of the role of individuals by the social structure, as well as by the peculiarity of the situation: in some periods (often long) there are few outstanding people, in others (often very short) - entire cohorts. Titanic people fail, and nonentities have a gigantic influence. The role of a person, unfortunately, is far from always proportional to the intellectual and moral qualities of the person himself. As K. Kautsky wrote, “Such outstanding personalities do not necessarily mean the greatest geniuses. Both the mediocre and even those below the average level, as well as children and idiots, can become historical figures if they fall into the hands of great power” (Kautsky 1931: 687).

G. V. Plekhanov believed that the role of the individual and the boundaries of his activity are determined by the organization of society, and "the character of the individual is a" factor "of such development only there, only then and only insofar as, where, when and insofar as social relations allow her" (Plekhanov 1956: 322). There is a lot of truth in this. However, if the nature of society gives room for arbitrariness (a very common case in history), then Plekhanov's position does not work. In such a situation, development often becomes very dependent on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler or dictator, who will begin to concentrate the forces of society in the direction he needs.

Development of views on the role of personality in history

Ideas about the role of the individual in history until the middle of the 18th century. Historiography arose not least from the need to describe the great deeds of rulers and heroes. But since there was no theory and philosophy of history for a long time, the problem of the role of the individual as an independent one was not considered. Only in an indistinct form was it touched upon along with the question of whether people have freedom of choice or is everything predetermined in advance by the will of the gods, fate, etc.?

Antiquity. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for the most part, looked at the future fatalistically, as they believed that the fate of all people was predetermined in advance. At the same time, Greco-Roman historiography was mainly humanistic, therefore, along with faith in fate, the idea is quite noticeable in it that a lot depends on the conscious activity of a person. This is evidenced, in particular, by descriptions of the fates and deeds of politicians and generals left by such ancient authors as Thucydides, Xenophon and Plutarch.

Middle Ages. Otherwise, to a certain extent, more logically (although, of course, incorrectly) the problem of the role of the individual was solved in the medieval theology of history. According to this view, the historical process was unequivocally regarded as the realization of not human, but divine goals. History, according to Augustine and later Christian thinkers (and the 16th-century Reformation period, such as John Calvin), proceeds according to a divine plan from the beginning. People only imagine that they act according to their own will and goals, but in fact God chooses some of them to realize his plan. But since God acts through the people he has chosen, then to understand the role of these people, as R. Collingwood notes, meant to find hints of God's plan. That is why interest in the role of the individual in history in a certain aspect acquired special significance. And objectively, the search for deeper causes than the desires and passions of people contributed to the development of the philosophy of history.

During Renaissance the humanistic aspect of history came to the fore, and therefore the question of the role of the individual - though not as a problem of pure theory - took a prominent place in the reasoning of humanists. Interest in the biographies and deeds of great people was very high. And although the role of Providence was still recognized as the leading one in history, the activities of outstanding people are also recognized as the most important driving force. This can be seen, for example, from the work of N. Machiavelli "The Sovereign", in which he believes that the success of his policy and the whole course of history depends on the expediency of the policy of the ruler, on his ability to use the necessary means, including the most immoral. Machiavelli was one of the first to emphasize that not only heroes play an important role in history, but often unprincipled figures as well.

During 16th and 17th centuries faith in the new science is growing, they are also trying to find laws in history, which was an important step forward. As a result, gradually the issue of human free will is resolved more logically on the basis of deism: the role of God is not completely denied, but, as it were, limited. In other words, God created the laws and gave the universe the first impetus, but since the laws are eternal and unchanging, a person is free to act within the framework of these laws. However, in general, in the XVII century. the problem of the role of the individual was not among the important ones. Rationalists did not formulate their view of it clearly enough, but given their ideas that society is a mechanical sum of individuals, they recognized the great role of prominent legislators and statesmen, their ability to transform society and change the course of history.

Development of views on the role of the individual in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

During Enlightenment a philosophy of history arose, according to which the natural laws of society are based on the eternal and common nature of people. The question of what this nature consists of was solved in different ways. But the prevailing belief was that society could be rebuilt according to these laws on reasonable grounds. Hence, the role of the individual in history was recognized as high. Enlighteners believed that an outstanding ruler or legislator could greatly and even radically change the course of history. For example, Voltaire in his "History of the Russian Empire in the reign of Peter the Great" portrayed Peter I as a kind of demiurge, planting culture in a completely wild country. At the same time, these philosophers often depicted prominent people (especially religious figures, due to the ideological struggle with the church), in a grotesque way, as deceivers and rogues who managed to influence the world with their cunning. Enlighteners did not understand that a person cannot arise from nowhere, it must to some extent correspond to the level of society. Consequently, personality can be adequately understood only in the environment in which it could appear and manifest itself. Otherwise, the conclusion suggests itself that the course of history depends too much on the accidental appearance of geniuses or villains. But in terms of developing interest in the topic of the role of the individual, the enlighteners did a lot. It is from the Enlightenment that it becomes one of the important theoretical problems.

A look at individuals as instruments of historical regularity

AT the first decades of the 19th century, during the period of domination of romanticism, there is a turn in the interpretation of the question of the role of the individual. Ideas about the special role of a wise legislator or founder of a new religion from scratch were replaced by approaches that placed a person in an appropriate historical environment. If the enlighteners tried to explain the state of society by the laws that were issued by the rulers, then the romantics, on the contrary, derived government laws from the state of society, and explained changes in its state by historical circumstances (see: Shapiro 1993: 342; Kosminsky 1963: 273). Romantics and representatives of directions close to them were little interested in the role of historical figures, since they paid the main attention to the "folk spirit" in different eras and in its various manifestations. The French romantic historians of the Restoration period (F. Guizot, A. Thierry, A. Thiers, F. Mignet, and the more radical J. Michelet) did a lot to develop the problem of the role of the individual. However, they limited this role, believing that great historical figures can only hasten or slow down the onset of what is inevitable and necessary. And in comparison with this necessary, all the efforts of great personalities act only as small causes of development. In fact, this view was also adopted by Marxism.

G. W. F. Hegel(1770-1831) in a number of points, including in relation to the role of the individual, expressed views in many respects similar to those of the romantics (but, of course, there were also significant differences). Based on his providential theory, he believed that "everything that is real is reasonable", that is, it serves to carry out the necessary course of history. Hegel is, according to some researchers, the founder of the theory of "historical environment" (see: Rappoport 1899: 39), which is important for the problem of the role of the individual. At the same time, he severely limited the significance of historical figures in terms of their influence on the course of history. According to Hegel, the vocation of "world-historical personalities was to be confidants of the world spirit" (Hegel 1935: 30). That is why he believed that a great personality cannot create historical reality itself, but only reveals inevitable future development. The task of great personalities is to understand the necessary next step in the development of their world, to make it their goal and to invest their energy in its realization. However, was the emergence of, for example, Genghis Khan and the subsequent destruction and death of countries (although along with this, many positive consequences arose in the future as a result of the formation of the Mongol empires)? Or the rise of Hitler and the emergence of the German Nazi state and the Second World War unleashed by him? In a word, much of this approach contradicted real historical reality.

Attempts to see underlying processes and laws behind the canvas of historical events were an important step forward. However, for a long time there was a tendency to downplay the role of the individual, arguing that as a result of the natural development of society, when there is a need for one or another figure, one personality will always replace another.

LN Tolstoy as an exponent of historical providentialism. L. N. Tolstoy expressed the ideas of providentialism almost more strongly than Hegel in his famous philosophical digressions in the novel War and Peace. According to Tolstoy, the significance of great people is only apparent, in fact they are only “slaves of history”, which is carried out by the will of Providence. “The higher a person stands on the social ladder ... the more power he has ... the more obvious the predestination and inevitability of his every act,” he argued.

Contrasting views on the role of the individual inXIXin. The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of the prominent role of personalities, "heroes" in history. One of his most famous works, which had a very strong influence on contemporaries and descendants, was called “Heroes and the Heroic in History” (1840). According to Carlyle, world history is the biography of great men. Carlyle concentrates in his works on certain personalities and their roles, preaches lofty goals and feelings, and writes a number of brilliant biographies. He says much less about the masses. In his opinion, the masses are often only tools in the hands of great personalities. According to Carlyle, there is a kind of historical circle or cycle. When the heroic principle in society weakens, then the hidden destructive forces of the masses can break out (in revolutions and uprisings), and they act until the society again discovers in itself the “true heroes”, leaders (such as Cromwell or Napoleon).

Marxist view most systematically stated in the work of G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) "On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History." Although Marxism decisively broke with theology and explained the course of the historical process by material factors, it nevertheless inherited much from the objective idealistic philosophy of Hegel in general and regarding the role of the individual in particular. Marx, Engels and their followers believed that historical laws are invariant, that is, they are implemented under any circumstances (maximum variation: a little earlier or later, easier or harder, more or less completely). In such a situation, the role of the individual in history appeared to be small. Personality can, according to Plekhanov, only leave an individual imprint on the inevitable course of events, speed up or slow down the implementation of historical law, but is not able under any circumstances to change the programmed course of history. And if there were no one personality, then it would certainly be replaced by another, which would fulfill exactly the same historical role.

This approach was actually based on the ideas of the inevitability of the implementation of laws (acting in spite of everything, with "iron necessity"). But there are no such laws and cannot be in history, since societies in the world system play a different functional role, which often depends on the abilities of politicians. If a mediocre ruler delays reforms, his state may become dependent, as, for example, happened in China in the 19th century. At the same time, reforms carried out correctly can turn the country into a new center of power (for example, Japan at the same time managed to reorganize itself and began to make conquests).

In addition, Marxists did not take into account that a person not only acts in certain circumstances, but, when circumstances allow, to a certain extent creates them according to his own understanding and characteristics. For example, in the era of Muhammad at the beginning of the 7th century. the Arab tribes felt the need for a new religion. But what she could become in her real incarnation, in many respects depended on a specific person. In other words, if another prophet appeared, even with his success, the religion would no longer be Islam, but something else, and then the Arabs would play such an outstanding role in history, one can only guess.

Finally, many events, including socialist the revolution in Russia (namely, it, and not the revolution in Russia in general), must be recognized as a result that could not have been realized without the coincidence of a number of accidents and the outstanding role of Lenin (to a certain extent, Trotsky).

Unlike Hegel, in Marxism, not only positive, but also negative figures are taken into account (the former can speed up, and the latter slow down the implementation of the law). However, the assessment of the "positive" or "negative" role depended significantly on the subjective and class position of the philosopher and historian. So, if the revolutionaries considered Robespierre and Marat to be heroes, then the more moderate public regarded them as bloody fanatics.

Trying to find other solutions. So, neither deterministic-fatalistic theories, which do not leave a creative historical role to individuals, nor voluntaristic theories, which believe that a person can change the course of history, as he pleases, did not solve the problem. Gradually, philosophers move away from extreme solutions. Giving an assessment of the dominant currents in the philosophy of history, the philosopher H. Rappoport (1899: 47) wrote at the very end of the 19th century that, in addition to the above two, there is a third possible solution: “Personality is both a cause and a product of historical development ... this solution , in its general form, seems to be closest to scientific truth...” On the whole, this was the right approach. The search for a certain golden mean made it possible to see different aspects of the problem. However, such an average view still did not explain much, in particular, when and why a person can have a significant, decisive influence on events, and when not.

There were also theories that tried to use the laws of biology that came into fashion, especially Darwinism and genetics, to solve the problem of the role of the individual (for example, the American philosopher W. James and the sociologist F. Woods).

Mikhailovsky's theory. Personality and masses. In the last third of the XIX century. - the beginning of the twentieth century. the idea of a lone individual who, thanks to the strength of his character and intellect, could do incredible things, including turn the tide of history, was very common, especially among revolutionary young people. This made popular the question of the role of the individual in history, in the formulation of T. Carlyle, the relationship between the “hero” and the masses (in particular, it is worth noting the “Historical Letters” of the revolutionary populist P. L. Lavrov). A significant contribution to the development of this problem was made by N. K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). In his work “Heroes and the Crowd”, he formulates a new theory and shows that a person can be understood not necessarily as an outstanding, but in principle any person who, by chance, found himself in a certain situation at the head or simply ahead of the masses. Mikhailovsky, in relation to historical figures, does not develop this theme in detail. His article rather has a psychological aspect. The meaning of Mikhailovsky's ideas is that a person, regardless of his qualities, can at certain moments sharply strengthen the crowd (audience, group) with his emotional and other actions and moods, which makes the whole action gain special strength. In short, the role of the individual depends on how much its psychological impact is enhanced by the perception of the masses. Somewhat similar conclusions (but significantly supplemented by his Marxist class position and concerning the already more or less organized mass, and not the crowd) were later made by K. Kautsky.

Strength of personality in different situations. Mikhailovsky and Kautsky correctly grasped this social effect: the strength of the individual grows to colossal proportions when the masses follow him, and even more so when this mass is organized and united. But the dialectics of the relationship between the individual and the masses is still much more complicated. In particular, it is important to understand whether the individual is only a spokesman for the moods of the masses, or, on the contrary, is the mass inert, and the individual can direct it?

The strength of individuals is often directly related to the strength of the organizations and groups they represent, and those who rally their supporters best achieve the greatest success. But this does not at all negate the fact that it sometimes depends on the personal characteristics of the leader where this common force will turn. Therefore, the role of the leader at such a crucial moment (battle, elections, etc.), the degree of his compliance with the role, one might say, is of decisive importance, since, as A. Labriola (1960: 183) wrote, the self-complex interweaving of conditions leads to the fact that “ at critical moments, certain personalities, whether brilliant, heroic, successful or criminal, are called upon to have the final word.

Comparing the role of the masses and individuals, we see: on the side of the first - the number, emotions, lack of personal responsibility. On the side of the latter - awareness, purpose, will, plan. Therefore, we can say that, other things being equal, the role of the individual will be greatest when the advantages of the masses and leaders combine into one force. This is why splits so reduce the power of organizations and movements, and the presence of rival leaders can generally reduce it to zero. So, there is no doubt that the significance of the figures is determined by many factors and causes. Thus, developing this problem, we have already moved on to the analysis of modern views.

Modern views on the role of personality

First of all, it should be said about the book of the American philosopher S. Hook “A Hero in History. Exploring Limits and Possibilities" (Hook 1955), which was a notable step forward in the development of the problem. This monograph is still the most serious work on the topic under study. In particular, Hook comes to an important conclusion, which essentially explains why the role of the individual can fluctuate in different conditions. He notes that, on the one hand, the activity of the individual is indeed limited by the circumstances of the environment and the nature of society, but on the other hand, the role of the individual increases significantly (to the point where it becomes an independent force) when alternatives appear in the development of society. At the same time, he emphasizes that in a situation of alternativeness, the choice of an alternative may also depend on the qualities of a person. Hook does not classify such alternatives and does not link the existence of alternatives with the state of society (stable - unstable), but a number of the examples he cited concern the most dramatic moments (revolutions, crises, wars).

In chapter 9, Hook makes an important distinction between historical figures in terms of their impact on the course of history, dividing them into people who influence events and people who create events. Although Hook does not clearly divide personalities in terms of the amount of their influence (on individual societies, on humanity as a whole), nevertheless, he attributed Lenin to people who create events, since in a certain respect he significantly changed the direction of development not only of Russia, but of the whole world. in the twentieth century

Hook rightly attaches great importance to chances and probabilities in history and their close connection with the role of the individual, at the same time he strongly opposes attempts to present all history as waves of chances.

In the second half of the XX - early XXI century. The following main areas of research can be distinguished:

1. Attracting methods and theories of interdisciplinary areas. In the 50-60s. 20th century finally formed systems approach, which potentially opened up the opportunity to look at the role of the individual in a new way. But more important here are synergetic studies. Synergetic theory (I. Prigogine, I. Stengers and others) distinguishes between two main states of the system: order and chaos. This theory has the potential to help deepen understanding of the role of the individual. With regard to society, her approaches can be interpreted as follows. In a state of order, the system/society does not allow significant transformation. But chaos - despite the negative associations - often means for her the opportunity to move to another state (both to a higher and to a lower level). If the bonds/institutions that hold a society together are weakened or destroyed, it is in a very precarious position for some time. This special state in synergetics is called "bifurcation" (fork). At the point of bifurcation (revolution, war, perestroika, etc.), society can turn in one direction or another under the influence of various, even generally insignificant, reasons. Among these reasons, a place of honor is occupied by certain personalities.

2. Consideration of the issue of the role of the individual in terms of the problem of the laws of history or in the context of certain areas of research and approaches. Among the many authors who in one way or another deal with these issues are the philosophers W. Drey, K. Hempel, E. Nagel, K. Popper, the economist and philosopher L. von Mises, and others, and between some of them at the end of 1950- x - early 1960s. there were interesting discussions around the problems of determinism and the laws of history.

Among the not particularly numerous attempts to develop the theory of the role of the individual, we can mention the article by the famous Polish philosopher L. Nowak "Class and Personality in the Historical Process". Nowak tries to analyze the role of the individual through the prism of the new class theory, which was part of the non-Marxist historical materialism he created. It is valuable that he tries to consider the role of the individual in a broad aspect of the historical process, builds models of the influence of the individual depending on the political regime and the class structure of society. In general, Novak believes that the role of a personality, even an outstanding one, in the historical process is not particularly great, which is difficult to agree with. Quite interesting and correct, although not fundamentally new, is his idea that the personality itself as an individual is not capable of significantly influencing the course of the historical process, if this personality is not at the intersection with some other factors - the parameters of the historical process (Nowak 2009: 82).

The role of outstanding people in the process of formation of states, the creation of religions and civilizations is well known; the role of outstanding people in culture, science, inventions, etc. Unfortunately, there are surprisingly few special studies in this regard. At the same time, there are many authors who, when analyzing the processes of formation of states and the development of civilizations, expressed interesting ideas about the role of the individual. Such ideas provide an opportunity to expand our understanding of the role of the individual in different periods, in different societies and special eras. In particular, in this regard, a number of representatives of the neo-evolutionary direction of political anthropology should be noted: M. Sahlins, E. Service, R. Carneiro, H. Klassen - regarding the role of the individual in the process of formation and evolution of chiefdoms and states.

3. In recent decades, the so-called alternative, or counterfactual, history(from the English counterfactual - an assumption from the opposite), which answers questions about what would happen if there were no one or another person. She explores hypothetical alternatives under non-existent scenarios, such as under what conditions Germany and Hitler could win World War II, what would happen if Churchill died, Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo, etc.

4. Analysis of the role of individuals in different situations comes from the idea that the historical role of the individual can vary from imperceptible to the most enormous, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, as well as on the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits.

Accounting for what moments, when and how affect the role of individuals, allows us to consider this problem most fully and systematically, as well as to model different situations (see below). For example, the role of the individual in monarchical (authoritarian) and democratic societies is different. In authoritarian societies, a lot depends on individual traits and accidents associated with the monarch (dictator) and his entourage, while in democratic societies, due to the system of checks and balances in power and the change of government, the role of the individual is generally less.

Separate interesting remarks about the differences in the strength of the influence of individuals in states of society of different stability (stable and critical unstable) can be found in the works of A. Gramsci, A. Labriola, J. Nehru, A. Ya. Gurevich and others. This idea can be formulated as follows : the less solid and stable a society is, and the more the old structures are destroyed, the more influence an individual can have on it. In other words, the role of the individual is inversely proportional to the stability and strength of society.

In modern social science, a special concept has also been developed that combines the impact of all typical causes - "situation factor".It consists of: a) the characteristics of the environment in which the individual operates (social system, traditions, tasks); b) the state in which society is at a certain moment (stable, unstable, on the rise, downhill, etc.); c) features of surrounding societies; d) features of historical time; e) from whether the events took place in the center of the world system or on its periphery (the first increases, and the second reduces the influence of certain individuals on other societies and the historical process as a whole); e) favorable moment for action; g) the characteristics of the personality itself and the needs of the moment and the situation in precisely such qualities; h) the presence of competitive figures.

The more of these points favors the individual, the more important his role may be.

5. Modeling allows you to imagine changes in society as the process of changing its phase states, and in each state the role of the personality changes significantly.As an example, we can cite a model of such a process, consisting of 4 phases: 1) a stable society such as a monarchy; 2) social pre-revolutionary crisis; 3) revolution; 4) creation of a new order (see also the diagram below).

In the first phase- during a relatively calm era - the role of the individual, although significant, is still not too great (although in absolute monarchies everything that concerns the monarch can become very important, especially in the second phase).

Second phase occurs when the system begins to decline. If the solution of issues that are inconvenient for the authorities is delayed, a crisis arises, and with it many individuals appear who seek to resolve them by force (coup, revolution, conspiracy). There are development alternatives behind which are various socio-political forces represented by personalities. And it now depends on the characteristics of these people, to one degree or another, where society can turn.

Third phase comes when the system perishes under the influence of revolutionary pressure. Starting in such a situation to resolve the global contradictions that have accumulated in the old system, society never has an unambiguous solution in advance (which is why it is quite appropriate to speak of a “bifurcation point” here). Some of the trends, of course, have more, and some less, chances to manifest themselves, but this ratio can change dramatically under the influence of various reasons. In such critical periods, leaders are sometimes, like additional weights, able to pull the scales of history in one direction or another. In these bifurcation moments the strength of personalities, their individual qualities, compliance with their role, etc. are of great, often decisive importance, but at the same time, the result of the activity (and, consequently, the true role) of the individual may turn out to be quite different from what she had imagined. Indeed, after the revolution and the destruction of the old order, society appears amorphous and therefore very susceptible to forceful influences. During such periods, the influence of individuals on a fragile society can be uncontrollable, unpredictable. It also happens that, having received influence, leaders completely turn societies (under the influence of various personal and general reasons) in a direction that no one could even think of, “invent” an unprecedented social structure.

Fourth phase comes with the formation of a new system and order. After a political force is consolidated in power, the struggle often takes place already in the camp of the victors. It is connected both with the relationship of leaders and with the choice of a further path of development. The role of the individual here is also exceptionally great: after all, society has not yet frozen, and the new order can definitely be associated precisely with some specific person (leader, prophet, etc.). To finally establish yourself in power, you need to deal with the remaining political rivals and prevent the growth of competitors from allies. This ongoing struggle (the duration of which depends on many reasons) is directly related to the characteristics of the victorious individual and finally gives shape to society.

Thus, the nature of the new system depends heavily on the qualities of their leaders, the ups and downs of the struggle and other, sometimes random, things. For this reason as a result of changes, the society that was planned is always not obtained. Gradually, the considered hypothetical system matures, forms and acquires rigidity. Now, in many respects, new orders form leaders. philosophers of the past expressed this aphoristically: “When societies are born, it is the leaders who create the institutions of the republic. Later, institutions produce leaders.” Undoubtedly, the problem of the role of the individual in history is far from being finally resolved.

Scheme

The ratio between the level of stability of society and the power of the influence of the individual on society

Aron, R. 1993. Stages of development of sociological thought. M.: Progress.

Grinin, L. E.

2007. The problem of analyzing the driving forces of historical development, social progress and social evolution. Philosophy of history: problems and prospects/ ed. Yu. I. Semenova, I. A. Gobozova, L. E. Grinina (p. 183-203). Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.

2008. On the role of personality in history. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 78(1): 42-47.

2010. Personality in History: The Evolution of Views. History and modernity 2: 3-44.

2011. Personality in History: Modern Approaches. History and modernity 1: 3-40.

Labriola, A. 1960. Essays on the materialistic understanding of history. M.: Science.

Plekhanov, GV 1956. On the question of the role of personality in history. Selected philosophical works: in 5 vols. Vol. 2 (pp. 300-334). M.: State. Publishing House Polit. liters.

Shapiro, A. L. 1993. Russian historiography from ancient times to 1917 Lecture 28. M .: Culture.

Engels, F. 1965. To Joseph Bloch in Konigsberg, London, September 21[-22], 1890. In: Marx, K., Engels, F., Op. 2nd ed. T. 37 (pp. 393-397). Moscow: Politizdat.

Hook, S. 1955. The Hero in History. A Study in Limitation and Possibility. Boston: Beacon Press.

James, W. 2005. Great Men and Their Environment. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Nowak, L. 2009. Class and Individual in the Historical Process. In Brzechczyn, K. (ed.), Idealization XIII: Modeling in History ( PoznanStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 97) (pp. 63-84). Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi.