'Scientist's Code': Adrian Selin on Novgorodians during the Time of Trouble, Harm from Positivism and Historian's Tasks
If you attended a meeting with HSE University-St Petersburg at least once, you must have met Adrian Selin, an academic supervisor of the Bachelor's programme 'History' and the dean of the School of Arts and Humanities. Usually, he talks about HSE University-St Petersburg but today, we are going to tell you about him and the job of a historian. Find out what prosopography is, why the Time of Trouble is interesting and why it is useless to look for Rurik's remains in the interview with the doctor of historical science.
Research you are proud of
Perhaps, my doctoral dissertation about Novgorodians during the Time of Trouble. There is no intrigue in this research, it is important in its approach. I used the so-called prosopography: from 4000 individual and work biographies, I singled out the details of daily, political and social life in the Novgorod land and united all these things in a text. I cannot say that in 2008, it was a revolutionary idea but it gave an impetus to many of my colleagues. At least, they also started using the term 'prosopography' referring to Lawrence Stone...
Why the Time of Trouble? For a person who plans to deal with the sources about Moscovia of the 16 and 17th centuries, it is a growing point. If you start with the Time of Trouble, later, it is easy to switch to something else. It is the bright, prominent time. It is easy to assess the fates of those people emotionally. For example, I studied the biography of a person from the village of Korechno in the Luzhsky District. He left somewhere, perhaps, for war, and his wife with seven children stayed in the village. It is pretty clear: when the winter comes, all these people are likely to die because the family had only one breadwinner. The situation is impossible to survive. But to write about such things, you have to let yourself through all this terror and understand it. Otherwise, it is impossible to write about the past.
From afar, it might seem that everything about the Time of Trouble is clear. But it isn't. For instance, I saw more than once how historians wrote the biography of Knyaz Grigory Romodanovsky anew. But why? There is no carefully considered canon. If we create such biographical notes about the main actors of that time, it would be easier. This will be helpful not only for event history but also for the understanding of context: non-obvious shades will be more noticeable.
Research which changed your conception of science
Here, it would be more appropriate to talk about the researchers who have changed my perspectives. In the beginning, Robin George Collingwood was truly important to me, he impressed me by the complete rejection of positivism. I got my PhD degree at the RAS Institute of History, and there, positivism is ahead of the curve. Those historians who work there are used to follow relentlessly the source in their conclusions. For some time, I also felt this awe of sources but Collingwood taught me another perspective: it is important not what the source wants to say but when it sounds.
Studying the sources without a context is basically important. We approach them as human beings with our own backgrounds and situations in modern culture. Trying to speak about these sources in Karamzin's language is stupid, and we won't be able to do it. But positivism assumes that there is only one knowledge, and it is eternal.
No less impact on me was made by Leo Klejn, Propp's protege, who later became an archaeologist. Thanks to him, I realised what sources can and cannot say. The easiest way to explain this is via archaeology. I had been working in the Staroladozhskaya Archaeological Expedition for 7-8 years. Idlers were regularly passing the excavation by and asking: 'Well, have you found Rurik?' We even can find him but we will never know it is him. Archaeology is not about it at all. It is about what utensils people used, which ornaments they used to decorate them and in what century it was created. These are questions you can ask an archaeologist, and others are pointless.
Researcher you want to look up to
If we talk about contemporaries, it will be nonsense. Often, I have a good opinion of a person even knowing their major disadvantages. So it turns out that I want to look up to many people but fully—to no one. The ideal is always connected to rigorism, and I am myself a human being who is far from perfect.
To look up to someone, we need distance. It is better to orient to those who you don't know, it helps. You won't be disappointed. At the university and PhD programme, I especially remembered Victor Paneyakh and Alexander Nemilov. I barely knew them but what they said was extremely important for me.
Nemilov delivered me a course on the Middle Ages. Thanks to him, I realised: there was no point in remembering dates without knowing the historical context. It seems like a simple idea but try saying it to a school teacher... Paneyakh helped me to reconsider the position of a historian. He often said: 'Anyone can write [a research] based on archives, try writing based on the published'. It means that we have to regularly reconsider the sources we work with. This is what our task is: to talk about the past in the modern language.
Sources of inspiration
My family—wife, kids. If you feel bad about the close ones, and it happens often, any research activity will be forced. It is some kind of sublimation. There is some decent research created in such a way but it is already about misery. Don't patch your mental holes with science.
Science should be considered an activity just like any other. Then, there are fewer faults, including social ones. Scientists are often perceived as devotees and enthusiasts but it is a great mistake. When the society has money, it supports scientists. When it needs to tighten the girdles, everything goes adrift. But I think that relying on enthusiasm is immorality. There is no need to work on the last leg. Everything must be in moderation.
One also shouldn't place utmost importance on the number of articles. I am for slow and thoughtful science. It's clear that there are some requirements but mediocre research is like mediocre poems: there are too many of them already, so why would we multiply them? Don't write articles you will be ashamed of only for publication activities.
The main thing for a scientist
As I've already said, science shouldn't be suffering. A good incentive to work is not need but perception. Sweatshop is a vaccine against qualitative articles. This is why the most important thing is good conditions for life and work. Of course, everyone understands this comfort in their own way. Important things for me are access to archives, a ventilated office and a good computer monitor, but it is much more difficult for biologists and physicists.
A good reputation is as important. For society, it is easy to create but for a research community, one has to build it slowly. Only honesty won't be enough. It is about culture, quality, carefulness, reliance... It is impossible without love.