Moscow, Nauka Publ. 1983, 416 p. "An amazing case! - there are no large monographs or books devoted to any of the outstanding historians of pre-revolutionary Russia yet. There is information about writers, but not about historians. There are no such works about V. N. Tatishchev, I. N. Boltin, M. M. Shcherbatov, N. M. Karamzin, or S. M. Solovyov, " 1 Academician M. V. Nechkina wrote in her monograph about V. O. Klyuchevsky. Of course, this was not due to the indifference of researchers to the largest representatives of pre-Soviet historical science. There are many articles devoted to them, and in works on Russian historiography they are given special chapters. And there really were no monographic studies about them. And not least among the reasons that led to this situation is the complexity of this scientific task. How exactly should a monographic study of prominent representatives of noble and bourgeois historiography be conducted? What complex of problems does a researcher face when trying to study the history of their life and work as fully as possible, interwoven into the context of each given stage of historical development? These questions were answered by M. V. Nechkina's monograph on V. O. Klyuchevsky 2 . The meaning of the book is not only deep and that's all- 1 Nechkina M. V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, Moscow, 1974, p. 5. 2 See also: Zimin A. A. Formation of historical views of V. O. Klyuchevsky in the 60s of the XIX century-Historical Notes, 1961, vol. 69; Kireeva R. A. V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian Historical Science, Moscow, 1966; Chumachenko E. G. V. O. Klyuchevsky-source studies, Moscow, 1970. page 130 third-party disclosure of the image of perhaps the brightest, most insightful and at the same time complex and contradictory representative of bourgeois science. M. V. Nechkina's monograph on Klyuchevsky is a historiographical phenomenon, an experience that provides prerequisites for monographic research on other outstanding representat ... Read more