“GENERALIZING COGNITION” AND MONOGRAPHIC RESEARCH OF THE PAST: OPTIONS OF INTERACTION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF BYZANTINISTIC STUDIES IN KYIV UNIVERSITY IN THE END OF XIX – EARLY XX CENTURY)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The idea behind this article is based upon the obvious difference between two basic kinds of scientific research usual for the humanities: 1. Research in minor articles aimed to discover or to underline some unique but yet unknown features of the subject. 2. Research in big monographic works aimed to generalize the number of abovementioned features and to create the whole picture of the subject. Some difference may be spotted here even at the first time entry into the issue. It is grounded on the usage of generalization as a feature represented in the research of the Kind 2 only. Researches in minor articles almost never require this; they correspond basically to the need of penetration into the new research field and thus are addressed mostly to the professional audience which doesn’t need huge explanations of what it’s all about. They can exist as “little explored subjects” 1 . The assumption that smaller articles precede mostly to the generalization phase sounds realistic. However, it should be underlined that presence of explanatory parts within monographic researches never makes them “less scientific”. They just live their own special life. What are its characteristics? Some of them are commonly known from the history of science. The smaller articles are mainly the cores of crucial discoveries in natural or exact sciences. These discoveries are often represented in the history of science as “breakthroughs”. For instance, theory of relativity started out from an article and only years later it was generalized into the whole picture of the Universe. Some advances in mathematics were made through smaller articles too. That means there is the difference in exact