«Теперь „русская история“ и „Ключевский“ слились»

Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856–1919) wrote on a wide range of topics throughout his life — from the theory of evolution to articles about theatre. In principle, this is not surprising for a journalist, especially one who has been writing for a major daily newspaper for more than a decade and a half. However, Rozanov, as is often forgotten, was a university man — in 1878–1882, he studied at the Faculty of History and Philology and graduated so successfully that he received an offer from one of the most famous (and influential) professors, V.I. Gerier, who held the chair of universal history, to stay at the university to prepare for a professorship. As is well known, Rozanov's biography unfolded differently — he chose the path of a provincial gymnasium teacher, taught history and geography, only to soon realize how ill‑suited he was to teaching — and then to spend many years trying to extricate himself from the life trap he had created for himself. Looking at Rozanov's publicistic writings as a whole, it is hard not to acknowledge that the theme of the university is one of the constant ones, as is his reference to his university memories. One of the regular companions of these memories, and in the last decade of Rozanov's life also an object of independent interest, was one of his university mentors — Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841–1911). Rozanov was among the first listeners of his university lectures — those who would soon gain nationwide fame. In this article, we have systematically identified the body of Rozanov's reviews of Klyuchevsky (unfortunately, as far as we know, no reviews by Klyuchevsky about Rozanov have survived), starting from the first printed mention of the historian and up to the records from 1917–1918, and analysed (mainly in chronological order) Rozanov's detailed statements about Klyuchevsky. As a result, it was possible to reconstruct a fairly comprehensive and dynamic image of Klyuchevsky in Rozanov's texts. In addition to the obvious interest from the perspective of understanding the public image of the historian, this provides additional material for understanding Rozanov's views, since in the late 1900s and 1910s, Klyuchevsky largely served as, if not a “double,” then a “mirror” for Rozanov, reflecting part of his aspirations and at the same time providing material for self‑criticism.