俄國革命前的歷史學有莫斯科學派領導史學思想與方法。此學派並未秉持任何理論傳統而僵化不變，相反的，從十九世紀中葉形成以來，一直處於動態發展。十九世紀晚期俄國社會思想已脫離先前由德國唯心哲學主導的局面，隨著諸多新學說傳入，歷史學家也運用新思維，對既有的方法論展開自省與檢討。密留可夫是著名的莫斯科學派晚期學者。他批評前輩歷史學家信奉的唯心哲學，認為其中最大缺失在於偏重主觀理智而輕忽客觀事實，易造成歷史書寫的疏漏和偏見。密氏因此主張拋棄唯心哲學知識論，轉向「實證」的立場，並結合其他學科性質。他一方面企圖化解哲學思想中的二元立場，另一方面，要讓歷史學完整呈現國族生命，給莫斯科學派帶來了新方向。他的實證方法重視歷史法則，並希望依此預測未來。所以他推論俄國應落實西方民主政治，支持自由主義改革。密氏因理論和實際並重，因此他的歷史學兼具學術性和應用性。

It is well known that the "Moscow school" (state school or juridical school) claimed the leading role in shaping historical thinking and methodology in pre-revolutionary Russian historiography. Rather than rigidly following certain theoretical dogma, the Moscow school had been developing dynamically since the mid-nineteenth century. Stimulated by foreign philosophies, Russian social theories had come to a new stage when the traditional German idealism ceased to provide dominant ways of thinking, and new methodologies were emerging by the late nineteenth century. By criticizing the conventional idealism that overlooked objective facts, P. N. Miliukov, a well-known scholar of late period of the Moscow school, proposed a new positivistic approach to historiography that integrated other scientific methods. On the one hand, Miliukov tried to solve the conflict of philosophical dualism; on the other hand, he shed new light furthering the development of the Moscow school by underscoring history from a national perspective. His positivism laid emphasis on historical rules and, based on these scientific rules, offered the prospect of predicting the future. Due to his positivistic historiography, he came to the conclusion that Russian politics should adopt Western democracy; therefore, he endorsed liberal reform in Russia. Overall, Miliukov tried to balance methodology and reality, and hence his historiography not only served the purpose of academic research, but also that of applied development.