Analytism against Empiricism: Reflections on the New Book by B.N. Mironov

The article analyzes Boris N. Mironov’s monograph “The Russian Empire: From Tradition to Modernity,” and discusses the features of the author’s style and methodology. The article focuses on the three main issues: (1) Consideration of the features of an analytical work, to which category Mironov’s book belongs. It has been suggested that empirical (concrete historical) and analytical (generalizing) works represent different categories of research, but have equal value, that is, they cannot be counter posed. If empirical study is focused on a complete and systematic description of historical events, then analytical study is focused on the identification of patterns and the examination of trends. (2) The advantages and disadvantages of the integrated methodology used in the monograph for the interpretation of historical material. It is noted that one of the possible consequences of conceptual instrumentalism and pluralism is the confusion related to different terminological systems, which affects the correct perception of the information by the reader. (3) The role of historian in creating historical myth. Focusing on the “positive” or “negative” approach to the assessment of historical events and processes contributes to the creation of historical mythsbecause of their emotional connotation. Historians are actively involved in the formation and mythologizing of historical consciousness: in contrast to the Soviet myth of the Russian Empire as a “prison of peoples” and a country of “poverty and injustice”, there is today amyth of “achievements,” demanded by society